1. The defendant is the petitioner whose application is condone the delay of 316 days is filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed.

2. The respondents filed C.S.No.551 of 1995 before this Court. Subsequently, upon enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, it was transferred to the City Civil Court and numbered as O.S.No.9306 of 1995. The petitioner was not aware of the transfer and therefore did not appear in the City Civil Court. Further since the petitioner's counsel also fall ill, they could ascertain the actual state of affairs. Only when E.P.No.1612 of 1999 was served on them, they came to know that the suit was decreed ex parte on 12.12.1998. the delay in filing the application had...only in the above circumstances and not on account of any negligence or indifference.

3. To theabove averments made by the petitioners in their affidavit, the respondent filed his counter denying the according to him the petitioners counsel had also appeared in the City Civil Court taking adjournment and therefore, the case set up by the petitioner that they know about the pendency of the suit in the City Civil Court only after service of notice was baseless.

4.